TAMPA – A Florida woman last month sued her former employer, Florida Polytechnic University, alleging she was discriminated against due to her age and eventually forced to quit.
Plaintiff Ericka Loofe filed her lawsuit against Florida Polytechnic’s Board of Trustees in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, May 7.
According to her 17-page complaint, the university violated the federal Civil Rights Act and Age Discrimination in Employment Act, or ADEA.
The ADEA forbids employment discrimination against anyone at least 40 years old or older in the U.S.
“Throughout her employment, Plaintiff was subjected to less favorable treatment than similarly situated male and/or younger employees, including but not limited to, repeatedly being denied opportunities for professional growth and advancement, exclusion from meetings, and routine office communications, while younger staff members were routinely included, treated more favorably, and credited for performing the same or even lesser work,” her complaint states.
In her filing, Loofe, who is in her early 50s, claims she began her employment at the university in December 2020. She held the position of admissions counselor at the time of her constructive discharge Dec. 10, 2024.
Constructive discharge, in legal terms, refers to an employee's resignation being treated as if they were fired, even though they technically quit. This happens when an employer creates working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign.
Florida Polytechnic University, located in Lakeland, is the state’s only public polytechnic university. It focuses solely on STEM education.
“Plaintiff was a loyal and dedicated employee who constantly met or exceeded her performance evaluations,” her filing notes. “Throughout Plaintiff’s employment, she was never issued a written warning, placed on a performance improvement plan, or counseled regarding any alleged performance deficiencies.
“Despite her stellar work performance during her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff has been subjected to disparate treatment, different terms and conditions of employment, and was held to a different standard because of her age and gender.”
According to her lawsuit, the disparate treatment and retaliation allegedly came at the hands of former Interim Vice President of Enrollment David Poole, a male in his late 50s; former Director of Admissions Lori Welch, a female in her late 30s; Admissions Counselor Savannah Taylor, a female in her late 20s; VP of Enrollment Andy Oguntola, a male in his late 30s; and Associate Director of Human Resources Eunice Alberson, a female in her mid-30s.
Loofe alleges that shortly after Welch’s hire, her “meaningful and visible” responsibilities were removed and reassigned to younger employees.
Also, she alleges that in the fall of 2023, Welch began to “systematically exclude” her from meetings and planning sessions that directly related to her job duties.
“These meetings were integral to Plaintiff’s job duties and responsibilities, and Plaintiff’s exclusion hindered her ability to perform her role effectively and limited her professional visibility and advancement opportunities,” the lawsuit states.
Problems continued in June 2024 when Poole was hired. According to Loofe’s filing, he worked remotely from Virginia and did not make frequent visits to the office.
“From the onset of his employment, Poole displayed disparate treatment towards Plaintiff by being dismissive and non-responsive to her communications,” the complaint states.
Both Welch and Poole also allegedly denied Loofe’s requests – repeatedly – for professional growth and development opportunities, despite them being required and documented in annual reviews.
Loofe contends she also endured “age-based disdain, gossip, and a lack of basic professional respect” from Taylor throughout 2024, contributing to a “hostile and demeaning” work environment.
According to the complaint, Taylor’s treatment of Loofe led to her forced resignation.
In December 2024, she was summoned to Oguntola’s office, where Alberson was present, and “without investigation, warning, or opportunity to respond,” was given an ultimatum: immediate termination or resignation effective immediately.
“Defendant failed to conduct any meaningful investigation, denied Plaintiff an opportunity to respond, and imposed an immediate adverse employment action under circumstances suggesting pretext,” the lawsuit states. “Plaintiff was blindsided by her termination and was provided no legitimate explanation for her separation other than a reference to Florida being a ‘right-to-work state,’ despite the absence of any documented performance issues.
“A reasonable person in Plaintiff’s position would have felt compelled to resign under these circumstances, constituting a constructive discharge.”
Loofe seeks compensatory damages, attorney fees and interest.
She is represented by Marie A. Mattox PA in Tallahassee.
